Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy: Student Learning Objectives and Data Driven Indicators

(1)

EDL Sixth Year Theses Isabelle Farrington College Of Education

12-2016

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy: Student

Learning Objectives and Data Driven Indicators

Geno Heiter

Sacred Heart University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at:http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/edl

Part of theEducational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons,Educational Leadership Commons, and theTeacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Custom Citation

Heiter, G. (2016). Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy: Student Learning Objectives and Data Driven Indicators. Unpublished Certificate of Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/ edl/15

(2)

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy: Student Learning Objectives and Data Driven Indicators

Geno Heiter Sacred Heart University

(3)

Abstract

Previous research explains that twenty-first century education has moved passed pedagogical ideologies that focus solely on student tasks that require the recall of facts or rote application of simple procedures. Unfortunately, the literature on music education has ignored the importance of measuring intrinsic attributes of music learning and fundamental musicianship. Measuring ‘valid’ higher-order and critical thinking skills as they relate to music learning is significant because states are now measuring student learning and teacher effectiveness by evaluating multiple data driven indicators. Determining ‘what’ valid higher-order learning ‘looks like,’ and the data that can be generated by this learning in a music classroom, is essentially what is at stake for the twenty-first century music classroom. However, to date, no systematic investigation has been considered regarding music teachers and their process for developing higher-order and ‘valid’ music learning indicators. The purpose of this thesis was to examine perceptions of music teachers in Connecticut regarding the efficacy ofthe Connecticut Guidelines for Educator

Evaluation. Data was collected through a comprehensive survey consisting of open- and close-ended questions. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data collected revealed that music teachers do not perceive the current use of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and Indicators of Academic Growth and Achievement (IAGDs) as efficacious or as a useful way to measure and evaluate critical thinking or inform music instruction. The data collected revealed that music teachers continue to create SLOs and collect IAGD data to fulfill a state mandate or district policy. As such, if the purpose and outcomes of SLOs and IAGDs continue to be worthless to music educators, meaningful and authentic music instruction and student learning will not progress until a better model that assesses teacher effectiveness and student progress emerges.

(4)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Student engagement, motivation and achievement are three over-arching initiatives that influence the success of education across the United States (Asmus & Harrison, 1990; Azzam, 2014; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Price, 2011; Sundberg, 2013). Equally important are the impact of authentic assessments that generate useful, reliable and valid metrics that guide teaching and evaluate instruction (Fox, 2013; James-Ward, Fisher, & Frey, 2013; Steele & Boudett, 2008a). As a result, generating data that proves instruction is effectively impacting student growth and achievement has become an essential part of measuring successful teaching (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011a).

Connecticut’s strategy for ensuring teachers are successful at meeting educational initiatives is to link teacher performance with teacher ‘effectiveness.’As part of the new teacher evaluation process, teachers are required to anchor the skills and knowledge learned by students in data. Consequently, according to the state of Connecticut, how well students perform on multiple data indicators determines a teacher’s effectiveness (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011a).

Currently, there is no ‘one’ teacher evaluation and support system adopted by all school districts in Connecticut. To assist districts with their educator evaluations and support plans the Connecticut State Department of Education published the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation and the Connecticut System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED). The Connecticut State Department of Education explained their purpose for creating SEED was as follows:

(8)

The purpose of SEED was to provide districts in Connecticut a model for the evaluation and support of teachers in Connecticut [that] is based on the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation (Core Requirements), developed by a diverse group of educators as part of PEAC (Performance Evaluation Advisory Council) in June 2012 and based upon best practice research from around the country. (p. 6)

Although all districts do not use SEED, a state-approved, district-developed teacher evaluation and support plan is required by all districts in Connecticut (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2015c). According to the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, teacher evaluation and support plans are driven by Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and the results generated by multiple student data indicators. These indicators are often referred to as an

Indicators of Academic Growth and Development (IAGDs) or Common Formative Assessments

Statement of the Problem

Many subjects have objective metrics that are used to measure and evaluate student learning, while others do not. For instance, math, reading, writing, science, language, and social studies are taught and assessed as objective, cognitive domain activities (Hanna, 2007). In contrast, objective assessment of subjects taught, such as music, are particularly difficult to objectively assess because their learning outcomes are often measured and evaluated using language that involves subjective assessment of specific artistic processes (Hanna, 2007; Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964; Robinson, 2015; Vada, 2013). Presently, the Connecticut State Department of Education requires that music teachers follow the same goal-setting process as teachers of academic subjects. The Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation dictates that data generated by IAGDs accounts for 22.5% of a teacher’s evaluation for all tested and non-tested subjects. In fact, the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation points to

(9)

specific objective assessments for teachers of standardized tested grades and subjects. However, the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation does not suggest objective assessments for non-tested grades and subjects (i.e., kindergarten, first-grade and second-grade teachers; special education, music and art teachers; and physical education, career, and technical teachers). Consequently, Connecticut music teachers and teachers in non-tested disciplines are left to measure student growth and achievement with SLOs whose success is determined by an array of non-standardized IAGDs.

Thesis Study

The purpose of this study is to gather, examine and discuss perceptions of music teachers in Connecticut regarding the efficacy of Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation, SEED and other district-developed guidelines for music teacher evaluation and support. This purpose led to the following research question:

1. How do music teachers perceive the efficacy of the Connecticut State Department of Education’s policies and guidelines for music teacher evaluation and support? This purpose led to an examination of perceptions of alignment between practice and policy, as well as a way to uncover and discuss the efficacy of SLOs and IAGDs. Further, this research will aim to uncover and evaluate the data driven collection tools used to evaluate music teacher effectiveness and student learning. A case study mixed methods design was used for this research because the drive behind this study was to collect and evaluate perspectives of music teachers in Connecticut so that a better understanding of this topic would be realized (Stake, 1995).

(10)

Summary

Chapter One provided an introduction, statement of the problem and the purpose for conducting this study. A research question was introduced that laid the groundwork for

examining the alignment between policy, practice and music teacher perceptions of efficacy. In addition, the reader gained insight into Connecticut’s new guidelines for teacher evaluation and support plans and how Connecticut links teacher performance with teacher effectiveness. Lastly, chapter one provided detailed definitions for SLOs and IAGDs for clarity.

Chapter Two will present a literature review that will highlight and distil the most

relevant historical and current substantive findings related to my research purpose. This literature review will also provide the reader with a foundation of the fundamental underpinnings and relationships between themes found in literature. Additionally, Chapter Two will aim to explore the theoretical and pedagogical contributions related to music teaching, student learning,

measurement and evaluation of instruction. Lastly, this literature review will identify gaps in the research and offer recommendations for future study.

Chapter Three will describe the structure and methodology that will be used and aim to explain why a case study best supports my research purpose. In addition, this chapter will show how the sample, measures, and methods used during the research process fit together and address the research question presented. Also, a detailed outline of how the data will be collected and analyzed will be presented in order to provide clarity of the research design. This process will provide a knowledgeable investigator enough information to replicate the study. Further, information that provides appropriate context of the research (i.e., setting, data collection and analysis methods) will be included. In all, this chapter will aim to provide the reader an

(11)

understanding of the methods used, as well as the appropriateness of the actions chosen given the nature of the study.

Chapter Four will present results of the data analysis. I will do this by incorporating illustrations such as tables, charts, pictures or drawings that summarize statistical information, figures, and variables. I will discuss relationships in the data and objectively provide potential explanations for statistical results. There were two specific themes that will be discussed, including: (1) music teachers do perceive that the intent of SLOs and IAGDs are to improve teaching and student learning, (2) music teachers do not perceive that SLOs or IAGDs as efficacious.

Chapter Five provides an overview of this research. First, it discusses conclusions that are drawn. Next, limitations were noted including the lack of prior research, prior sample size

recommendations, available instruments and the amount of time allotted to complete this study. Following, implications of practice were stated suggesting that perhaps music teachers need more professional learning opportunities that would aid in the development of more meaningful and authentic SLOs and IAGDs. Lastly, suggestions were made for future research.

Definition of Terms

Indicators of Academic Growth and Development (IAGDs): An IAGD is the evidence that supports the learning target set forth by the SLO. These indicators are clear and relay what evidence will be examined, what level of performance is targeted and what proportion of

students is projected to achieve the targeted performance level. Indicators should address student subgroups and strive to reach as many students as possible. IAGD should be fair, reliable, valid and useful to the greatest extent possible (Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and

(12)

Development, n.d.; Connecticut State Department of Education, 2015b; Illinois State Board of Education, 2016; Lachlan-Hache et al., 2012; Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2014).

Student Learning Objectives (SLOs): SLOs are an alternative to the more generally used value-added modeling with standardized test scores, which may not be available or appropriate for all teachers and subjects. SLO’s are a way to measure teacher impact, which in turn, are a way to measure educator effectiveness (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011a, 2015a, 2015b; Illinois State Board of Education, 2016; Lachlan-Hache, Cushing, & Bivona, 2012; Lacireno-Paquet, Morgan, & Mello, 2014).

(13)

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Similar to successful kindergarten-12 (K-12) math, language arts or science programs, an efficacious music program is characterized by a curriculum whose units of study embed

formative assessments that reliably measure valid music skills and awareness as a way to guide and improve all aspects of instruction (Ainsworth, 2011). Given the apparent benefits of a music education and the legal mandates to provide a free and appropriate music education in public schools throughout the United States, it seems prudent to continually explore, develop, implement and determine the highest quality assessment tools that measure students’ musical potential and musical achievements. More importantly, considering the value of implementing a pedagogy that is driven by reliable and valid formative assessments is no longer an option in education, but a requirement (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011a; Fox, 2013; James-Ward et al., 2013; Steele & Boudett, 2008a, 2008b).

Music and authentic music education offers people the opportunity to experience and learn a fine art that is uniquely a ‘human’ experience. As a point of interest, developing music skills and awareness is a discipline that ‘all’ people can learn to some degree of success when music instruction is targeted and accounts for individual differences (Gordon, 2012; McPherson, 1997; Seashore, 1919; Seashore, Lewis, & Saetveit, 1960). This literature review will aim to research, identify and examine (a) factors that influence learning (b), how learning occurs, and (c) how learning principles apply and correlate to ‘music education.’

I began to review the literature in the field/topic of measurement and evaluation of music aptitude and music achievement in 2002. From 2002 to 2015, I established a professional

(14)

practice many of the research based instructional strategies as they relate to music and learning. These experiences provided me with a foundation from which I organized, structured and designed my current research in 2016. My current review of the literature began primarily

reflecting on the current state of music education. The following keywords were used (separately and in combination) when searching electronic databases that included Google Scholar,

Education Resources Information Center, Journal Storage and ProQuest: music, education, aptitude, achievement, engagement, motivation,learning, theories, paradigms, constructivism, classroom, behaviorism, cognition, surveys, self-efficacy, Edwin Gordon, pedagogy, Seashore, testing, assessment, measurement and evaluation. I began with a broad search and then

incorporated Boolean logic by adding ‘and,’ ‘not’ and ‘or’ to refine my search. To ensure high-quality research, searches were limited to pieces published in international peer-reviewed journals. For each piece, specific information was noted, including: (a) authors, (b) year of publication, (c) journal, (d) objectives of the study, (e) important findings and conclusions, (f) keywords and (g) times cited. Lastly, articles were reviewed for their reliable information and relevance to the topic presented in this literature review.

In this literature review, an overview of research pertaining to seven teaching and learning themes are presented, explored, examined and discussed as they relate to music instruction and education. These areas include giftedness and talent, music aptitude and achievement, ability-grouping, differentiation, engagement and motivation, aspects of learning and finally, taxonomies in education. For each theme, research pertaining to the topic are expressed with relevance to the importance of this topic and research study. A summary concludes the review of literature, where important research is restated and interpreted, with recommendations for future study.

(15)

Giftedness and Talent

For over a half a century, the word ‘gifted,’ has become a term with multiple meanings and much nuance (Gagné, 1985; National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.-b). For example, students who demonstrate success in music are typically described as gifted or talented (Heavner, 2005; McPherson, 1997; Seashore, 1919; Seashore et al., 1960). In a similar fashion, K-12 schools also use the terms giftedness and talent to describe students who demonstrate a high degree of success in general performance areas that include core subjects such as mathematics, visual arts, and language arts (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Gagné, 1985). Regardless of context, there are varying views on the nature of how the terms giftedness and talent are used to identify and measure student giftedness and talent (Gagné, 1985; Gordon, 1969; Heavner, 2005; Seashore, 1915, 1919; Seashore et al., 1960).

Consequently, due to the colloquial evolution of these two words (i.e., gifted and

talented), they are often used together to describe a single behavior or attribute (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Davis & Rimm, 1989; Gordon, 2008). Through a comprehensive review of the literature (McPherson, 1997), noted that the competing definitions used in various sectors of education for giftedness and talent have made understanding these words problematic. Comparatively,

according to the National Association for Gifted Children (2016), giftedness and talent were fluid concepts that might look different in schools across the United States. Albeit, since multiple meanings, nuance and competing definitions exist, nearly every U.S. state has its own definition of giftedness and talent. However, despite the multiple unique interpretations that the terms ‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’ elicit, individuals continue to use them interchangeably and the general public has grown accustomed to hearing them used synonymously (Gordon, 2012).

(16)

Music teachers often describe talented and gifted students as having the ability to “master various musical skills and concepts at a fast pace” (Heavner, 2005, p. 171). Similarly,

McPherson (1997) noted, “music is one of the most easily identified fields of human activity in which talent can be demonstrated… the young violinist that can perform a violin concerto is obviously talented” (p. 71). As these statement may be true, students who master various skills at a slower pace, or not perform a violin concerto, but a catchy guitar riff without the aid of

notation ‘may also’ have equally notable musical gifts or talents (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Gordon, 1990; McPherson, 1997; Richardson, 1990). By the same token, McPherson (1997) reflected that technique and recreation of existing music literature were the most popular indicators of

giftedness and talent, but perhaps not comprehensive, reliable or valid indicators of giftedness or talent. Comparatively, Richardson (1990) stated:

the terms “musically gifted” and “musically talented” can mean many things to many people, as can the term “musically gifted and talented.” …Does your state’s definition focus on the student’s present, demonstrable performance talent? If so, it might seem relatively easy [or not, depending on the measurement tool] to pick the top twenty performers from among your student’s by means of an audition… If, however, your state’s definition also encompasses such factors as student’s potential performance, …can you spot potential… [or are you] overlooking a potentially gifted music student who is

not a star performer? (p. 41, emphasis in original)

In a similar fashion, McPherson (1997) summarized Richardson’s points by stating, “…a child may be gifted without displaying any specific talent… the identification of gifted children is essentially a task of trying to predict an individual’s potential to succeed musically prior to any formal musical training” (p. 69). Like Richardson (1990) and McPherson (1997), Schmidt (1980)

(17)

suggested three different skill areas that needed to be considered in determining musical giftedness: performance skills, creative ability (such as composition) and verbal and musical-perceptual skills. As a way to identify these musically gifted students, Schmidt suggested three procedures: a performance audition, analysis of student composition and evaluation of student writing. Similarly, McPherson (1997) added that for music, there were domains of ability (i.e., gifts) and fields of performance (i.e., talents).

Given these points, the writings of Heavner (2005), Richardson (1990), McPherson (1997) and Schmidt (1980) all represented samples in the literature that offered descriptions of giftedness and talent. On the negative side, these writings only emphasized observations and teacher experience. As a matter of fact, although few case studies and seminal understandings were referenced by these researchers (Heavner, 2005; McPherson, 1997; Richardson, 1990; Schmidt, 1980), no empirical experiments or statistical evidence that reliably or objectively measured musical giftedness or talent or that speak to the validity of measurement were evident in their research. More importantly, these researchers provided minimal recommendations for future research that helped to distinguish between giftedness or talent. Alternatively, their writings focused on pedagogical recommendations or music teaching methods or techniques.

All instruction, including music instruction, should be guided by reliable and valid

measures that provide objective data to assist in subjective evaluation (Fox, 2013; James-Ward et al., 2013). Identifying musical giftedness and talent positively influences teaching and student learning (Ainsworth, 2011; Gordon, 1967, 2004; Seashore, 1915, 1919; Seashore et al., 1960). When the terminology used to describe and identify behavioral attributes becomes confusing and cumbersome, and valid and reliable data are not embedded into curriculum, authentic teaching

(18)

Music Aptitude and Music Achievement

Accurate historical and diagnostic student data can positively transform curriculum and instruction (James-Ward et al., 2013). By in large, music education is no different than any other subject taught. Identifying and understanding the differences between music aptitudes and music achievement is essential to positively impacting teaching and student learning (Gordon, 1969, 2001b; Seashore, 1915; Seashore et al., 1960; Seashore, 1919). Individuals have come to

recognize that intelligence is the ability to learn, reason and problem solve (National Association of Gifted Children n.d.-a). Additionally, in 1982, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple

intelligences expressed the importance of recognizing musical intelligence as an important dimension of intellect (Woolfolk, Winne, & Perry, 2015).

According to Seashore (1915), “musical talent, like all other talent, is a gift of nature-inherited, not acquired; in so far as a musician has natural ability in music, he has been born with it” (p. 129). Further, in the Psychology of Music, Seashore (1919) stated musical intelligence was like “…philosophical, mathematical, or scientific intelligence” (p. 7). Seashore explained that the degree of a person’s intelligence might characterize or set limits for musical achievement. A matter of continued confusion and debate among teaching professionals and researchers has been basing the measurement of musical giftedness and talent solely on intellectual tasks that involve muscle memory, technique and the recalling of facts (Harrison, 1990; Krathwohl et al., 1964; Woodford, 1996), and not based on the types and stages of audiation (Azzara, 1993; Dalby, 1999; Garner, 2009; Gordon, 2008, 2010; O’Donnell, 2011; Salvador, 2011).

For forty years after the Psychology of Music was published, most psychologists had built upon Seashore’s principles that music talent was an innate human characteristic (Gordon, 1961). Further, attempts to help clarify the distinctions between these mental attributes, were provided

(19)

by McPherson (1997), who cited Gagné’s definition of aptitude as, natural ‘abilities’ that have ‘genetic’ origins and appear to develop spontaneously in every individual. Alternatively, as early as 1972, and until his death in 2015, Gordon avoided words such as ‘ability,’ ‘talented,’ ‘gifted,’ and ‘musical’ from his research when evaluating and describing students, since by nature, the nuances of these terms have historically confused the issue by obscuring the important

distinction between music aptitude and music achievement (Gordon, 2012). Richardson (1990) acknowledged the importance of identifying and measuring aptitude when she explained:

teachers who routinely administer musical aptitude tests often discover that students who seem to be uninterested in music have advanced skills in [pitch discrimination, tonal memory, rhythmic memory, chord analysis, and music sensitivity and are] …the very students who need to be identified as having potential and whom special programs need to be devised. Musical aptitude tests are an invaluable source of information about the student that may otherwise be obscured by the student’s classroom behavior [or performance]. (p. 42)

Gordon (2012) explained, “music aptitude as well as general intelligence is based on how well a person can draw generalizations from specific information and experience. To generalize enables one to make inferences and judgments that foretell and possibly influence future events” (p. 46). As a matter of fact, Seashore’s (1919) ‘degree of intelligence,’ and Gordon’s (2012) ‘explanation of musical aptitude’ provided a description of a mental attribute that moves beyond the skills of Bloom’s memory and recall stages (Harrison, 1990; Krathwohl et al., 1964; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Vada, 2013). Moreover, Gordon (2012) further detailed the distinctions between music achievement and music aptitude when he stated, “music achievement is intellectual and primarily

(20)

(p. 45). Measuring music aptitude and measuring music achievement are two distinct attributes. When performed with fidelity, both measures provide additional critical data for evaluating students and guiding authentic and meaningful music instruction.

“Music aptitude is a measure of what a student can learn. Music achievement is measuring what a student has learned” (Gordon, 1990, p. 1, emphasis added). In depth

reflections of the relevant terminology provide additional clarity and rich discussion points for researchers when correlations and distinctions between giftedness, talent, aptitude and

achievement are the topic of interest (Richardson, 1990; Rinn & Bishop, 2015; Slavin, 1990). When these measures are understood and used as diagnostic tools, they are essential components that inform comprehensive units of study (Fox, 2013; Steele & Boudett, 2008a, 2008b), and have the ability to transform music curriculum and music instruction (Ainsworth, 2011; James-Ward et al., 2013). Williams (2009) stated, “an ethical teacher is always using hard data and action research to improve his or her practice (p. 31). Furthermore, through a comprehensive

understanding of how to accurately measure and evaluate music aptitude and music achievement, music curriculum and instruction can benefit from such data and provide more targeted and engaging units of study that positively impact teaching and student learning regardless of how students are ‘grouped’ (Fox, 2013; Standerfer, 2011; Taylor, 1908; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005).

Ability-Grouping

There is a lack of research regarding the grouping of K-12 music students. K-12 music student grouping in the United States are typically influenced by the following circumstances: (a) chronological age, (b) student enrollment, (c) years of study, (e) instrument, (f) music teacher

(21)

observations and (g) parent recommendations. Further, researchers Hallam, Rogers, and Ireson (2008) wrote:

art, music and drama have tended to be grouped together as ‘the arts’… In schools, these subjects are rarely grouped by ability and where they are taught in ability groups those groups are usually based on classifications derived from more ‘academic’ subject

groupings. While previous research has tended to suggest that teachers of the arts favored mixed-ability groupings, a weakness has been that their attitudes have been assessed collectively not taking account of possible differences. (p. 172)

Conversely, an important fact to recognize is that for more than 70 years, ability grouping and student tracking (AGST) has been a controversial issue for all K-12 subjects (Allan, 1991; Ireson & Hallam, 2001; Kulik, 1992, 1993; Slavin, 1990).

AGST opponents do not believe that homogeneous groupings benefit teachers and students (Allan, 1991; Ireson & Hallam, 2001; Kulik, 1992, 1993; Slavin, 1990). Further, Slavin and Kulik (1992; 1990) explained that persons opposed to AGST reason that students of lower aptitude and achievement levels benefit from the presence that higher aptitude and achieving students bring to learning. For example, typically, in a grades five to 12 music ensemble class, instrumental parts are distributed based on student ability to decode musical notation. These parts typically require skills of higher levels of motor skill dexterity of more intricate fingerings, extended ranges or rhythmically acrobatic content. Whether a student may or may not be able to give contextual meaning (i.e., tonality, meter or keyality) to the pitches and durations he or she is reading is often not considered (Gordon, 2001a, 2012). Students with lesser ability are ordinarily assigned easier parts that require lesser of the aforementioned skills. Whether they can identify

(22)

there is nothing inherently wrong with [higher ability and achieving students] serving as a positive role model on occasion, it is morally questionable for adults to view any student's primary function as that of role model to others” (p. 64). Further, individuals opposed to AGST challenge that teaching high or low aptitude students in the same class requires the special skill and creativity of a highly qualified veteran teacher (Martin & Pickett, 2013; Salvador, 2011; Standerfer, 2011; Tomlinson, 2014; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005). To put it another way, researchers Hallam et al. (2008) reported:

they [teachers] perceived the advantages of mixed-ability teaching largely in social terms, while the disadvantage was perceived to be the difficulty ofproviding appropriate work for pupils of high and low ability in the same class. Those critical of mixed-ability teaching suggested that it failed to motivate and increase the achievement of the highly able, although the less able were perceived to benefit. The research also found

differences in teachers’ attitudes towards mixed-ability teaching depending on the subject that they taught. …teachers of mathematics and modern foreign languages tended to hold the most positive attitudes, while those teaching English, the humanities and the arts held the most negative. (p. 182)

With all this in mind, music teachers that are considered to be highly qualified are more likely to choose teaching positions that implement curriculums that are more rigorous and engaging and that by nature are designed to teach students with higher music aptitudes or levels of

achievement (Slavin, 1990).

Additionally, Slavin explained, “…homogeneous [groups] harms many students, especially middle and lower aptitude students, who may suffer a loss in self-esteem, academic motivation, and overall accomplishment when placed [labeled] in the slower groups…” and

(23)

would benefit from those creative and experience teachers (p. 22). Labels that identify or certify a student’s overall ability supports an epistemology that a student is either ‘able’ or ‘unable.’ Burris and Garrity (2008) stated:

do students differ in talents and achievement? They do. But when those observed differences are reinforced by track placement and grouping practices, and children then internalize those differences, learning opportunities become limited for all but the elite student. The talents of late bloomers go undiscovered, and the rewards of hard work and diligent study are never realized. (p. 3)

Further, Slavin (1990) reported that those who oppose of AGST believe that the stigma of labels is discriminatory in nature towards minority and lower-class students and have an overall

negative impact on teaching and learning. Alternatively, Allan (1991) stated:

it is unclear whether grouping has any effect on the self-esteem of students in the general school population… [and] effects on self-esteem are small but positive for low-ability children and slightly negative for average and high-ability children. There is limited evidence that remedial programs have a positive effect on the self-esteem of slow learners. (p. 65)

However, Kulic (1993) did report that student achievement fell dramatically for high aptitude and ambitious students who attended schools that eliminated enriched or accelerated classes for the sake of eliminating AGST.

For many schools, AGST labels begin around kindergarten with intelligence quotient or early achievement tests designed to measure aptitude that determine an educational road map for students for the next twelve years (Burris & Garrity, 2008). Alternatively, in most music

(24)

inspired by a host extrinsic motivating factors (i.e., peer, social, parent or teacher influence). As a point of interest, reliable or valid music aptitude or achievement tests are often not

administered to determine music group placement. With this in mind, Buldoc (n.d.) wrote, “standards [for rating and placement] are adjusted to suit the abilities of the performers… This is also a common classroom technique” (p. 5). Additionally, Buldoc added:

the major difference between tests of ability and tests of attainment [for music grouping] is in the way the scores from both types of test are used. A test of attainment cannot be directly correlated to ability [music aptitude or music achievement]. Auditions [for placement in groups] are one example of measures of achievement or attainment, and while we might draw some conclusions about an individual's ability [music aptitude or music achievement] on the basis of the results, we would not use them as a direct measure of their ability [aptitude]. A less talented student [or a student with a current lower level of music achievement] may work harder than a more able [higher music aptitude] student to produce a higher score. This isn’t a bad thing, and in fact bears out one of the developmental positive… Hard work and planning can offset talent [music aptitude]. The concern is the ability of evaluators to recognize high achievement [music aptitude and/or music achievement] based on the criteria in front of them. The results may be different if given criteria where the wording and weighting are different (technique over musicality). (p. 6)

Conversely, it is clear to recognize the impact of understanding the differences that exist between measurement and evaluation of music aptitude and music achievement when implementing various systems to group music students.

(25)

A point often overlooked is, unlike music classes, after elementary grades, AGST continues in middle or junior high school for core subjects where students are ‘block scheduled’ and spend most of the day in one homogenous group (Slavin, 1990). As a point of interest, Burris and Garrity (2008) argued that, “…tracking [such as this] is a meritocracy that relies on teacher recommendations, grades, and student motivation to determine placement… [and in many cases] students and their parents are allowed to choose a track, with certain conditions attached to the placement” (p. 1). Further, opposition to AGST suggested that student maturity, motivation, test-taking skill, absence of a reliable and valid measure and parent influence contributed to the lack of reliability and validity of AGST placement (Allan, 1991; Ireson & Hallam, 2001; Slavin, 1990). Slavin’s (1990) meta-synthesis’ of AGST involved 21 case studies and provided data on the effect size of ability grouping on students of different ability levels that drew the following conclusions.

1. Comprehensive between-class ability grouping plans have little or no effect on the achievement of secondary students. This conclusion is most strongly supported in grades 7-9, but the more limited evidence that does exist from studies in grades 10-12 also fails to support any effect of ability grouping.

2. Different forms of ability grouping are equally ineffective.

3. Ability grouping is equally ineffective in all subjects, except that there may be a negative effect of ability grouping in social studies.

4. Assigning students to different levels of the same course has no consistent positive or negative effects on students of high, average, or low ability. (p. 17) Although Slavin’s meta-synthesis provided a comprehensive list of conclusions based on

(26)

Regardless of subject, what applies to ‘all’ teaching and student learning is how Allan (1991) cautioned and insisted that all educators (i.e., including music teachers) become critical consumers of the research to determine what the research supports, and then decide what can be reasonably applied to school programming. Comparatively, music programming should be no different than other academic school programming. At the top of Allan’s list, he explained that no matter whether persons supported or opposed AGST, the data collected from meta-analytic reviews revealed effective grouping programs depended on their ‘features’ or AGST ‘types.’ Consequently, Burris and Garrity (2008) reported that AGST had been largely undone across the United States and replaced with somewhat less rigid systems characterized by curriculum

differentiation to include ‘features’ that defined specific AGST types. The question that remains for music education is whether the movement has yet influenced music programs to implement a curriculum that are characterized by a systematic, research based and differentiated process (Bolduc, n.d.; New York State Education Dept., 2002).

Individuals in favor of AGST believe that such groupings benefit both teachers and students (Allan, 1991; Ireson & Hallam, 2001; Kulik, 1992, 1993; Slavin, 1990). Advocates for AGST believe that homogeneous instruction carries the benefits of student progress

commensurate to abilities and provides instruction that focuses on the needs of a specific group. AGST supporters believe that teaching, without differentiation is easier (Slavin, 1990).

Conversely, advocates embrace AGST paradigms since ability grouped classrooms do not require additional teacher planning or professional development to learn how to integrate differentiation into units of study (Kulik, 1992). As this may be true to some degree,

differentiation does not exclusively mean scaffolding instruction. Differentiation of instruction includes the process of providing tasks that involve variety and diversity that are more likely to

(27)

facilitate an interest in learning (Ames, 1992). In a music class differentiation may include varied musical repertoire, groupings or different music skill development (i.e., improvisation and

composition). Although select research suggest the need to differentiate instruction is not needed in a AGST classroom, Allan (1991) explained that, “one question not asked in the Slavin

research [i.e., a meta-synthesis] was whether programs designed to provide differentiated education for gifted or special education students were effective” (p. 61, emphasis in original). Another key point to recognize was Allan’s review of the literature revealed that in some cases, dramatic achievement gains were found for students that were regrouped and provided ability appropriate, differentiated materials.

Regardless of AGST opposition or support, all students, whether ability grouped or not, should be experiencing a differentiated curriculum, with comprehensive units of study that provides creative options (Bender, 2012; Salvador, 2011; Standerfer, 2011; Tomlinson, 2014; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005). Differentiation should include tiered interventions when needed and systematic enrichment or acceleration opportunities geared to student learning styles,

modalities and ability levels for core academic as well as music courses offered (Ainsworth, 2011). All things considered, the importance of distinguishing the difference between music aptitude and music achievement and how music students are grouped in any music class is paramount when evaluating music curriculum, units of study and for preparing to differentiate music instruction.

Differentiation

Differentiation of instruction can positively transform curriculum and instruction (Ainsworth, 2011; Bender, 2012; Perks & Middleton, 2014; Price, 2011; Tomlinson &

(28)

be no different than any other subject taught (Garnett, 2013; Gordon & Woods, 2001; Martin & Pickett, 2013; Niland, 2009; Salvador, 2011; Standerfer, 2011; Tobias, Campbell, & Greco, 2015). According to Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) (2011b) differentiation is “a proactive decision-making process that considers critical student learning differences and the curriculum. Differentiated instruction decisions are made by teachers and are based on: (1) formative assessment data, (2) research-based instructional strategies, and (3) a positive learning environment” (¶ 11). The CSDE’s (2016) Connecticut Common Core of Teaching (CCT) Rubric for Effective Service Delivery identified that proficient or exemplary teaching was evidenced by “teachers who incorporate ‘differentiated’ strategies, tasks, and questions to actively engage the majority of learners in constructing new and meaningful learning through integrated discipline-specific tools that promote problem-solving, critical and creative thinking, purposeful discourse or inquiry” (p. 13). In addition, teachers strive to provide instruction that includes scientific research-based interventions (SRBI) that align with the common core of teaching and learning.

How effective differentiated instruction looks in a music classroom has been the topic of research (Martin & Pickett, 2013; Salvador, 2011; Standerfer, 2011). Teachers who differentiate, in any classroom, arts or academic, “…provide specific alternatives for individuals to learn as deeply as possible and as quickly as possible, without assuming one student’s road map for learning is identical to anyone else’s” (Tomlinson, 2014, p. 4). Researchers at the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (2009) defined differentiated instruction as:

a process to approach teaching and learning for students of differing abilities in the same class. The intent is to maximize each student's growth and individual success by meeting each student where he or she is... rather than expecting students to modify themselves for the curriculum. (¶ 2)

(29)

In other words, attending to the individual differences of every student equally is a reality for all educators, music teachers included.

As an illustration, Tomlinson and Strickland explained (2005), teachers typically differentiate instruction by modifying either the content (i.e., what students learn), the process (i.e., how students learn), or the product (i.e., how students demonstrate their mastery of the knowledge or skills). With this in mind, the process will look different depending on the music classroom, prior knowledge, interests, and abilities students bring to a learning scenario. In music, prior knowledge and ability would be determined by a person’s music aptitude and level of music achievement. Gordon (2012) explained:

process, …relates to method of learning whereas product relates to goals accomplished as a result of process. The process of how and the product of what is learned are different only in theory. In actual teaching they are not mutually exclusive. (p. 15)

At the present time, adapting instruction to meet the individual differences is an obvious requirement to ensure teaching and student learning success in the classroom. What is less obvious is the process of implementing specific and targeted differentiating instruction

(Ainsworth, 2011; Green, 2008; Standerfer, 2011; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005; Vada, 2013) for different courses of study (i.e., language arts, math, science, and in particular music). Further, Salvador (2011) wrote that “conceptual clarity about instruction that is guided by clear and accurate evaluation of student skill and awareness provides authentic modifications to teaching methods and instructional materials that address the differences of all learners …” (p. 44), and not solely targeted to those who have exceptional ability to reason and learn (National

(30)

Currently, evidenced-based process (i.e., measuring music aptitude and music

achievement), specific ‘differentiated’ instruction, and SRBI are mandated for core subjects ‘are not’ mandated for music education. “In music education, teaching practices are often

implemented without any evidence to support enhancement in teaching or learning outcomes” (Bugos, 2015, p. 8). Bugos added, music “educators spend little time evaluating outcomes of specific [research-based] pedagogies, approaches, or methods” compared to teachers of math, science and language arts (p. 8). Bugos continued to explain, “there is a considerable need for schools to get involved in conducting research in music education that can translate to practical application in the general music classroom” (p. 8). This lack of reflection and systematic investigation of current practice contributes to the inadequate diagnosing and fostering of students’ music aptitude and music achievement. Inadequate diagnoses prevent authentic and dynamic instruction that meets the needs of all music learners (Fox, 2013; James-Ward et al., 2013; S. Taylor, 1908).

Ironically, although an abundance of music learning research does exist, much has been done with questionable purpose and the results themselves have accomplished little (Bugos, 2015; Cogdill, 2015; Gordon, 2005). Many music teachers, district music supervisors, directors and school administrators are unaware of the complex framework that contributes to shaping a student’s needs that contribute to their motivation to continue learning music. Understanding of these complex frameworks is necessary to effectively and efficiently address the individual needs of all students regardless of music aptitude and level of achievement. Through purposeful

differentiation and modifying of instruction, no matter what the subject, students become better prepared and engaged and motivated for the next phase of learning (Ainsworth, 2011; Standerfer, 2011; Tomlinson, 2014; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005).

(31)

Engagement & Motivation

Researchers have noted that engagement and motivation can positively transform

students and the learning climate of a school and classroom (Azzam, 2014; Burak, 2014; Cogdill, 2015; Harrison, Asmus, & Serpe, 1994; Larmer, 2014; Martin & Pickett, 2013; Quate &

McDermott, 2014; Sundberg, 2013; Wormeli, 2014). Comparatively, embedding lessons that are engaging and motivating students in a music classroom is no different than any other subject (O’Donnell, 2011; Salvador, 2011). A search on Google Scholar yielded about 3,620,000 results for articles related to ‘engagement’ and about 3,150,000 articles related to ‘motivation.’ Two schools of thought that exist in the literature are that motivation is a fixed quality that drives a student or motivation is the result of environmental influences (Perks & Middleton, 2014). For example, Schunk (2012) discussed that regardless of diverse behavioral or cognitive learning theories, common instructional principles include, ‘motivation’ as part of the mental construct for learning. “Educators have described [engagement and] motivation in many ways – and how they view it influences both their beliefs about their students and their approach to teaching” (Perks & Middleton, 2014, p. 48). Consequently, the process of effectively engaging students in a music classroom is a teacher’s ability to skillfully navigate content, instruction, and attend to students' individual differences in ways that direct or redirect student thinking to a state of motivation that inspires authentic and meaningful learning (Jackson & Zmuda, 2014).

Engaged music learners pursue and focus on their own thoughts. Engaged music students share their ideas and understandings about topics of study and take risks. Engaged music learners are not compliant or passive participants. Ironically, alternative thought by research suggested, engagement is not a requirement for all types of learning (Jensen, 1998). However, under most

(32)

than less of it” (p. 34). All things considered, successful teachers work to managing stimuli and maintain engaged and motivated behavior especially when teaching and student learning requires effort and purpose when rigor is a factor.

Although engagement and motivation are both unique behavioral attributes, teaching professionals often link them together when discussing and analyzing their role during the learning process (Azzam, 2014; Jensen, 1998, Quate & McDermott, 2014; Richardson, 1990; Southern Regional Education Board, 2011). ‘Engaged’ students are typically ‘motivated’ to learn by some stimuli. ‘Motivated’ students are typically the result of cognitively ‘engaged’ students. As Asmus & Harrison (1990) explained, identifying and understanding characteristics of motivation and engagement, and their relationship to aptitude, contribute significantly to one’s propensity to succeed during learning episodes. Further, Gordon (2012) explained that students who lacked motivation and engagement were the result of poor teaching practices that ignored students’ music aptitude, prior knowledge and level of achievement. Music teachers that

understand how to interpret reliable and valid music aptitude and music achievement results are better equipped to provide instruction that intrinsically motivates and engage students in all aspects of music learning.

Aspects of Learning – Categorizing

Teachers and learning theorist generally agree on the importance of concept learning, problem solving, transfer, and metacognition during the learning process (Gordon, 2012; Isbell, 2012; Meumann, 1913; Schunk, 2012). Comparatively, embedding lessons that incorporate higher-order skills that require students to extend their thinking in a music classroom is no different than any other subject (Bender, 2012; Keast, 2009; O’Donnell, 2011; Salvador, 2011). Notably, educational psychologists have discussed that learning tasks such as, “fluent reading—

(33)

reading with comprehension—is an outgrowth of viewing words through a semantic feature-analytic approach or [process]” (Gordon, 1974, p. 39). In a similar fashion, for music teachers, this cognitive process requires embedding modifications that account for measuring and evaluating prior knowledge. Moreover, part of this process requires students, music students alike, to develop the skill and ability to categorize. Smith (2012) stressed that categories were an essential component of cognition and developing information systems. “To categorize means to treat some objects or events as the same yet as different from other objects or events” (p. 16). Notably, during general skill development, each type of skill learning is unique (Schunk, 2012), and comprehension occurs through learning difference and sameness and the ability to

discriminate between categories and distinctions within categories for ‘music’ as well as with other subjects in K-12 education (Gordon, 1981, 2012; Vada, 2013).

In a like manner, Bruner (1985) compared learning a musical instrument, mathematics, how to play chess or reading rhymes as similar learning tasks since all involve cognitive

processing that require balancing attention, memory, persistence and mental categorizing. Smith (2012) explained:

this process of learning to establish categories involves hypothesizing what are the significant differences—the only reason to establish a new category is to make a new differentiation in our experience, and the learning problem is to find the significant differences that should define the category. (p. 200)

The process of acquiring reading and comprehension skills when developing music literacy (i.e., the ability to listen, read and write music with comprehension) parallels that of reading and comprehending language. “It should be recognized that ‘words’ and ‘patterns’ function

(34)

synonymously in language reading as they do in developing music literacy” (Gordon, 1974, p. 40). An important distinction that Gordon (2001a) made in over 50 years of research was that:

music is not a language. It has no grammar or parts of speech. Music is a literature. Nevertheless, processes of learning language are highly similar. Most adults are familiar with children’s linguistic development. Thus, …analogies of language development and musical development [help] make the musical development process more easily

comprehensible. (p. 1)

Individuals develop their understanding of word meaning through various experiences that acculturate and guide their learning. The vocabularies of language include – and in order of developmental sequence are – listening, speaking, thinking, reading and writing (Gordon, 2011, 2012; Smith, 2012; Vygotsky, 1978). Developing competence categorizing represents a process of skill acquisition for the complex types of learning that occur in school subjects such as reading, writing, mathematics, science and music (Gordon, 2012; Isbell, 2012; Schunk, 2012). As the rules of syntax and word choice evolve in our cognitive structures and meaning is established, persons group and categorize phonemes that individual letters or groups of letters create contextually (Smith, 2012).

In light of current educational policy, many music educators are often searching for ways to connect the discipline of teaching music with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the influences state mandates have on teaching and student learning have on all teachers, including music teachers (National Association for Music Education, n.d.; State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education, 2016). Conversely, the New York State Education Department (2002) published Music – A Resource Guide for Standard-Based Instruction (MRGSBI), which was designed to provide, “guidance to New York state school districts and teachers to help

(35)

students achieve the music standards” (p. 1). Consequently, this 164-page document provides a meta-compilation of pre-K-12 ‘field tested’ lessons in all areas of music instruction including band, chorus, orchestra, and general music. As a point of interest, the MRGSBI was not intended to be a curriculum. It was intended assist music teachers with aligning the current national standards for music education with the state’s. Further, the MRGSBI provided comprehensive, sequential pre-K-12 units of study that would be dynamic and considered to be continuously developed. Conversely, footnoted on page 131 of the MRGSBI’s Appendix B titled: Types of Assessment Tools and Tasks, numbered 16 of 17 of ‘recommended’ assessment tools and

materials was listed: Standardized Music Achievement Tests (i.e., Iowa Tests of Music Literacy) (Gordon, 1971, 1991): Music Achievement Tests (Colwell 1969, 1986); Silver Burdett Music Competency Test (Colwell 1979); Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (Walkins & Farnum, 1954, 1969). An additional point of interest was that no mention of a music aptitude test was listed. With this in mind, for the purpose of state and national alignment, associating aspects of learning to units of music study and observing the ‘taxonomies in education’ regarding how all these elements apply to a music and learning, has unlimited positive potential to guide research based instruction, engage and motivate and differentiate learning in the music classroom.

Taxonomies in Education

Researchers and music teaching professionals have used the word taxonomy to describe various areas of teaching and learning (Gordon, 1974; Krathwohl et al., 1964; Mayer, 2002; Vada, 2013; Veal & MaKinster, 1999). Travers (1980) offered that classification is the

taxonomic process by which groups of categories or attributes are established in a logical order. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, (1964) described a true taxonomy in the context of educational

(36)

…a set of classifications which is ordered and arranged on the basis of a single principle or on the basis of a consistent set of principles. Such a true taxonomy may be tested by determining whether it is in agreement with empirical evidence and whether the way in which the classifications are ordered corresponds to a real order among the relevant phenomena. The taxonomy must also be consistent with sound theoretical views available in the field... finally, a true taxonomy should be of value in pointing to phenomena yet to be discovered. (p. 11)

In a similar fashion, taxonomy can describe the logical order of research-based pedagogical strategies for music educators. As an illustration, pedagogical strategies in a music classroom include, for example: planning, teaching methods, evaluation, group work, questioning, wait time, feedback, individual instruction, lecture, demonstration, and reinforcement. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) wrote “it may come as a surprise to some readers that up until 30 years ago, teaching had not been systematically studied in a scientific manner (p. 1). Another compelling surprise is that a uniformed systematic approach to music instruction that

horizontally and vertically aligns K-12 comprehensive learning objectives has not been

mandated (National Association for Music Education, n.d.; State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education, 2016).

The CCT outlined a taxonomy of children’s linguistic development and stressed that all students must learn to listen, speak, understand, read, write, and use language effectively in a variety of content areas (National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2016c). In similar fashion, sequential music learning observers the same sequence of music literacy acquisition, with two substitutions in terminology to account for the music learning differences, they are: listen, perform, audiate, read and write (Gordon, 2001a, 2010).

(37)

Additionally, taxonomies in education were apparent in the CCSS literacy skills by which they aligned with the sequential development of comprehension related to varied text complexities throughout K-12 education that prepared students for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines (National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2016b). Similarly, the CCSS provided a taxonomy for math and “…beginning in grade 6, the literacy standards allow teachers of ELA, history/social studies, science” (¶ 3). Consequently, students are expected ‘and’ required to meet the particular challenges of listening, speaking,

understanding, reading, and writing, the language that pertains to in their respective fields. Music programs on the school and district level may all have similar learning objectives and goals for teaching and student learning. Consequently, without alignment with respect to the taxonomies and content and pedagogy that reflects agreement among all teachers, essential or transformative education will not be realized (Benedict, 2012; Mayer, 2002). Researchers have suggested that three areas of focus to better align teaching and learning to meet educational goals for teaching for ‘all’ subjects included: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Shulman clarified:

when there exist competing claims regarding a given phenomenon, the syntax of a

discipline provides the rules for determining which claim has greater warrant. A syntax is like a grammar. It is the set of rules for determining what is legitimate to say in a

disciplinary domain and what “breaks” the rules. (p. 9)

In a similar fashion, effective communication of learning objectives, goals and outcomes that align with an acceptable level of capability for defining accepted truths in a domain and an understanding to explain and defend logically why a particular proposition or purpose for a

(38)

both in theory and in practice is essential for positively impacting student engagement,

motivation, teaching and learning in ‘all’ subject areas (Benedict, 2012; Mayer, 2002; Shulman, 1986, 1987).

In contrast, with music education, a crucial factor which contributes to misaligned state or national standards is the lack of consensus of pedagogical taxonomy (Mayer, 2002), and what is a valid test of music aptitude and music achievement (National Association for Music

Education, n.d.; State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education, 2016). Music psychologists and research suggested the importance of tonal and rhythm patterns in the development of music literacy (Azzara, 1993; Gordon, 2012; Holahan, Saunders, & Goldberg, 2000; Seashore, 1919). As a matter of fact, tonal and rhythm patterns have been researched extensively and seminally organized (i.e., a taxonomy exists) according to their musical structure in The Psychology of Music Teaching (Gordon, 1971), and more recently in Learning Sequences in Music: A Contemporary Music Learning Theory (Gordon, 2012). Additionally the role of ‘audiation’ helps to distinguish the unique nature of musicianship from other intelligences that may appear to be similar in nature due to ‘like’ intelligence attributes expressed by various researchers (Brualdi, 1996; Gordon, 2012; Harrison, 1990; Jensen, 1998; Woodford, 1996; Woolfolk et al., 2015).

Consequently, much of this research and many K-12 music teachers and music teaching universities have ignored the distinct attributes that are unique to music learning (Gordon, 1969, 2012; Seashore, 1915, 1919; Seashore et al., 1960). Regardless of the tonal and rhythm pattern research that has been performed and the extensive efforts that have been made to justify their importance, these taxonomies are not part of any CCSS or national music and arts initiative (Gordon, 1974; National Association for Music Education, n.d.; State Education Agency

(39)

Directors of Arts Education, 2016), and consequently remain topics of research rather than guiding principals that can be embedded nationally to transform future music curriculums (Beall, 1991; Garner, 2009; Gordon, 1974; O’Donnell, 2011; Sang, 1998; Vada, 2013; Woodford, 1996).

Summary

The purpose of this literature review was to research, identify and examine (a) factors that influence learning (b), how learning occurs, and (c) how learning principles apply and correlate to ‘music education. Conversely, the key themes in the literature that were most relevant with regards to music teaching and student learning and their relationship to music aptitude and music achievement were: giftedness and talent, music aptitude and achievement, ability-grouping, differentiation, engagement and motivation, aspects of learningand finally, taxonomies in education.

The literature revealed a limited amount of research that explored, examined or discussed the impact of how music teachers could use objective measurement and how these measures could or would influence subjective evaluation of music instruction and music students. The literature did not reveal substantial empirical evidence regarding the use of teacher created rating systems that addressed various quantitative or qualitative measurement of student performance that focused on music goals and objectives for teaching and student learning (i.e., teacher created continuous, additive or numerical rating scales). Additionally, there was very little research that discussed the logistics, practicality and benefits for administering a standardized reliable and valid music aptitude or music achievement test and how these measures may or may not impact music instruction. Equally important was the absence of how students of different aptitudes

(40)

existed between music pedagogy, music aptitude and music achievement. Additionally, the literature did not reveal research that collected, examined, and discusses cohort samples of students that attended the same school but different music classes, teachers, music pedagogical approaches, music aptitude, and music achievement. Further, surveys regarding student and teacher attitudes and perception of various music pedagogies were not apparent in the literature.

(41)

Chapter 3: Methodology

Description of Characteristics of Inquiry

At our core, we all are nothing but the sum of our experiences. Creswell (2013) stated, “whether we are aware of it or not, we always bring certain beliefs and philosophical

assumptions to our research” (p. 15). With this in mind, Creswell also posited:

sometimes these [experiences] are deeply ingrained views about the types of problems that we need to study, what research questions to ask, or how we go about gathering data. These beliefs are instilled in us during our educational training through reading journal articles and books, through advice dispensed by our advisors, and through the scholarly communities we engage at our conferences and scholarly meetings. (p. 15)

My epistemological beliefs are based on life-long experiences and dedication to music learning and teaching. Epistemologicalassumptions are those beliefs that knowledge is known and the longer researchers stay in the ‘field’ or get to know the participants, the more they ‘know what they know’ from firsthand information.

Teacher evaluation systems in Connecticut public schools vary. In 2015, the Connecticut State Department of Education issued new teacher evaluation guidelines. The Connecticut State Department of Education established, “educator evaluator guidelines [that] provide direction to school districts as they develop and adopt new systems of educator evaluation and support” (p. 2). To assist districts in the development and implementation of new educator evaluations systems, the Connecticut State Department of Education published the Connecticut System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED). The Connecticut State Department of Education (2015a) further stated, “in electing to implement the SEED model, your district is expected to

(42)

Connecticut State Department of Education explained that, “any variation from the components of teacher evaluation and support as written within this document is no longer the SEED model and would be considered a ‘district-developed’ evaluation and support plan” (p. 43). The Connecticut State Department of Education offered districts the option of adopting SEED, or using the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation and SEED to develop their own teacher evaluation and support plans. The Connecticut State Department of Education required districts that opted to use the SEED guidelines and develop their own plans to submit their educator evaluation and support plans annually to the Connecticut State Department of Education for approval.

Working within a pragmatist interpretive framework (Creswell, 2012), this research will serve to explore the rigorous attributes of the Connecticut State Department of Education guidelines for teacher evaluation. I believe that with progressive, timely and scaffold

professional learning, the Connecticut State Department of Education’s guidelines for teacher evaluation has the potential to evolve in such a way that it can indeed “fairly and accurately evaluate [music] teacher and school leader performance in order to help strengthen practice to improve student learning” (SEED, n.d.). Creswell (2012) stated, “individuals holding an

interpretive framework based on pragmatism focus on the outcomes of the research—the actions, situations, and consequences of inquiry” (p. 28, emphasis in original). My pragmatic framework of inquiry has sculpted my current philosophy and driven me to believe that all music teachers and music teacher evaluators can employ the use of objective data to better measure and evaluate teacher effectiveness and student learning. Moreover, through the implementation of professional learning, it is my pragmatic belief that music teachers can learn better ways to generate objective

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy: Student Learning Objectives and Data Driven Indicators